Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's kinda important to the people who are looking for work right now, and are more interested in working now than they are in the prospects for future expansion. For those people, it's not a question of what it "portends" for unemployment, but for whether they are working right now.
This is not rocket science.
At the risk of being flip, your view is a little like saying that a decline in a city's murder rate is good because it's the sort of thing that increases property values, which leads to a reduction in crime.
|
Of course it is, but that is not the discussion we were having and the macro few is far more important both to those people and the country as a whole.
Another related point. It is unlikely we will hit the low unemployment numbers we had during the bubble anytime soon. Those numbers were a blip on radar screen. Instead we will steadily add net jobs over the course of the next year. Maybe it will be 60k/month, maybe 200K/month, we will have to see. But in any event, the Democrats will still be able to claim, and will claim, a net loss in jobs under Bush. This will be true even if we get down to historically good numbers (say 5.2%), because they will still be higher than under Clinton.
